Tag Archives: video

What’s In A Face?

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

A voice without the face is still the same person…right?

Given that humans are highly visual creatures, and that a disproportionately large portion of the brain is devoted to processing images (Wolfe, 2001), it seems to make sense that including video in virtual conferences could dramatically improve communication between people.  Interestingly enough, not all studies support this idea (Inkpen, Hegde, Czerwinkski & Zhang, 2010) and in many work situations, people often prefer going without video (Hirsh & Brokopp, 2005).  Why this should be the case is a discussion we’ll have to save for later.  For now, we want to look at the reported benefits of including video.

According to a 2010 study of 3-way discussions via computer conferencing, participants perceived significant differences in discussions they had with and without video–with the majority of participants giving “with video” a big thumbs up (Inkpen et al).  Bear in mind that this means they had simultaneous video of the other two members of their discussion group, not just one person at a time, (some of the aforementioned studies of videoconferencing were set up so that meeting members only saw the presenting speaker, aka voice activated switching with is used by Microsoft Office Communicator and most hardware room systems such as Polycom and Tandberg).  So this is what participants had to say about the benefits of including video versus audio alone:

1.  “With video [it was] easier to stay engaged and track the conversation.” (97)
Save brain power to focus on *what* is being said instead of who’s saying it.

2.  “Having eye-contact and seeing other people’s emotions made a huge difference and enhanced the conversation” (97)
Building rapport through eye-contact has always been an important point, beginning with ancient Greek and Roman oratory.

3.  “Felt accountable for joining in” (97)
Make sure others are throwing their weight.

4.  “No video…[i]t’s easier to think that pauses in the conversation mean you are not being paid attention to or that someone disagrees” (98)
Prevent avoidable misunderstandings and conflicts (which saves time and emotional energy).

5.  “But I must admit that I had no email or web distractions.” (97)
Know that you’ve got the listener’s attention.

So a voice without a face  just  isn’t the same person–it’s less of the same person.  A face can be a significant source of information for better communication.

References:

Inkpen, K., Hegde, R., Czerwinski, M., Zhang, Z. (2010). Exploring spatialized audio & video for distributed conversations. Proceedings of CSCW 2010, Savannah, Georgia, 95-98.

Kirk, D., Sellen, A., Cao, X. (2010). Home video communication: mediating ‘closeness’. Proceedings of CSCW 2010, Savannah, Georgia, 135-144.

Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain Matters: Translating Research Into Classroom Practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

People less truthful when texting

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Not really a shocker, but a recent study done by Direct Line Insurance in the UK shows people tend to “fib” more often in texting and social network postings than in face to face meetings.  As communication becomes less intimate, avoiding hearing and seeing each other as a message is conveyed, it becomes easier to stretch truths, omit facts, and even outright lie.

This is a crucial point for managers to remember, as well as sales and service reps.

I want to stress that I am not saying we should stop using IM.  We all agree that IM, email, and the phone are not only important but absolutely necessary for efficient communication in today’s world.  However, as anyone who’s been broken up with over the phone (or worse, by IM) can attest, it’s far too tempting to use asynchronous and distancing mediums to convey bad news, creative answers, and generally try to control information that really needs to be open and accessible.

Why is this?

For starters, no one likes to be the bearer of bad news.  Especially if Continue reading →

Chat to Video in Sales

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Lets say Susie is a sales rep and she’s meeting a customer in her office.  The customer asks a question that Susie doesn’t know the answer to, and she doesn’t know who to ask.

Phone or video are not good choices here because Susie doesn’t know who to call.  A mass email may take hours before the correct party checks their email.  A personal IM is not helpful for the same reason phone and video aren’t.  But a broadcast-style IM a la Chatter is a perfect, immediate, non-intrusive way to get the question out to a broad number of teammates.

Once one of Susie’s teammates responds that he can answer the question, we now move toward more synchronous communication.  Susie can respond by asking her coworker if he’s available to talk to the customer right now.  If he isn’t, he can quickly detail the answer for her.  If he is, we move on to the next step.

Video, rather than phone or email, is perfect for introducing customers to backend support personnel.  Research shows that trust levels are often at or near those of physical face-to-face meetings.  Let’s call Susie’s coworker Marv, and Marv the engineer has now been introduced directly to the customer.  This face-to-face with an engineer increases the customer’s confidence that whatever answer he receives will be on the mark.  It also gives Marv a chance to discover what customers expect for support once the sale has been made.

A great advantage of a video meeting over a face-to-face discussion is that the participants have all sorts of information at their fingertips they otherwise wouldn’t have.  Using collaboration tools Marv can show Susie and the customer any pictures, charts, spreadsheets, widgets, whatever, that will help them out.  Likewise, when it’s time to discuss paperwork with the customer, Susie can call her sales supervisor and remotely co-edit contracts, marketing materials, etc.

Granted, every sale and sales process is different.  But we’ve experienced several scenarios quite like this one, and hope that outlining can help you effectively implement these tools in your organization.

Not just “Skype Etiquette”

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

This was a very interesting post Michael Arrington put up on TechCrunch yesterday.  I myself am guilty of a one of the sins:  I have a two-sentence limit on my IMs before I hit enter and continue…but I’ll explain myself at the end.  The points he makes are very good and not just for Skype, so please check the link.  (However, I suggest ignoring the bit about Skype’s screenshare, which I find abominable.)

Skype Etiquette

Two things to remember when deciding how to use chat vs. video vs. phone vs. email are  intimacy and immediacy.  Video, being both intimate and timely, is often the last link in a chain of communication.  Chat, on the other hand, being potentially asynchronous and less intimate, is often a stepping stone—the links that join other links in that chain.  Or it can be the conversation itself.  Email, by nature, is neither synchronous nor intimate; the recipient can respond whenever at arm’s length…or possibly filter it into their spam folder.  Chat is great for moving in either direction.  IM conversations can indicate needing to move a conversation to a more direct medium (video/phone) or a less direct one (email).  Email can accomplish the same thing, albeit in a slower manner.

Regardless, Michael’s ideas can easily be summed up:  Don’t harass.  If the conversation is already engaged, ask if the other party is willing to escalate or pull-back on the conversation.  Ask yourself what level of intimacy and immediacy is appropriate to the communication and the person in general.  And remember, just because the communication is in an intimate form, don’t assume the environment of the recipient is.  (Remember the example of the Skype call during a presentation?)

Since I promised to say why I often hit ‘enter’ after roughly two sentences:  I sometimes get impatient when I’m involved in a mostly synchronous chat and after an overly-long period of time I receive  War and Peace as an IM.  Then the other person has to wait for me to finish reading this masterwork of American literature before I can craft a response.  Assuming my chat partners feel the same, I serialize my great American novel rather than send it in one chunk.  Unlike Michael’s ‘friend’, though, I at least try and get a couple sentences out…and I always read what they type back!!!

Skype IPO doesn’t mean Enterprise Solution

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Skype announced it will soon have an IPO.  (Also here.)

Let’s not confuse this with being a business tool.

Yes, video calling is handy for businesses.  But what about presentation and collaborative tools?

Skype has an immense user base, and yet operational income for the first half of 2010 was only $1.4M.  This net is surprisingly small for a company this large and with their revenues ($406M).  Sustaining this small income means expanding upon a model that simply doesn’t support businesses, and doesn’t appear efficient in the first place.

Let’s break this down:

Skype is designed to encourage viral adoption.  A simple UI, free for everyone to get, and free to make most calls.  Most especially, scalability to global proportions and the ability to make and receive calls from ANYwhere with enough bandwidth.

Part of Skype’s weakness for enterprise use lies in that last portion.  Scalability to gl Continue reading →